When I tried to use UFCS to call a nested function, I was
surprised that it didn't work. Then I looked up the document, and
found out this is actually by design. However, I found the reason
listed in the document very unconvincing.
I will copy the example here:
int front(int[] arr) { return arr[0]; }
void main()
{
int[] a = [1,2,3];
auto x = a.front(); // call .front by UFCS
auto front = x; // front is now a variable
auto y = a.front(); // Error, front is not a function
}
class C
{
int[] arr;
int front()
{
return arr.front(); // Error, C.front is not callable
// using argument types (int[])
}
}
Looks like all of these examples can be resolved by just letting
the compiler keep trying the next symbol after the first one
failed, just like doing an overload resolution. So what's the
problem with doing that?
Also can't the compiler simply lower a.name to name(a) if 'name'
is not found in 'a', then compile that?
